External Reviewer Guidelines and Notes

External reviewers play a critical role in the promotion and tenure review process. Reviewers should be selected carefully to ensure appropriate expertise, independence, and credibility.

Qualifications of External Reviewers

Institutional Standing and Comparability

External reviewers should generally be affiliated with institutions that are comparable to or more prestigious than IU Indianapolis.

Comparability may be demonstrated at either:

• The institutional level (for example, peer R1 universities); or
• The disciplinary or professional level, where the reviewer is recognized as a leading scholar or practitioner in the candidate's area of excellence.

The department chair should explain the basis for determining comparability when presenting the reviewer list.

For non-tenure-track (NTT) candidates, comparability should be assessed in relation to the candidate's area of excellence. For example, a faculty member at a community college may be an appropriate reviewer if they have established a national reputation in pedagogy, teaching innovation, or another relevant area.

Institutional Diversity

Reviewers should represent a variety of institutions.

When more than one reviewer is selected from the same institution, they should be affiliated with clearly distinct departments, schools, or units.

Reviewers Outside Academia

External reviewers may occasionally come from outside academic institutions when their expertise is directly relevant to evaluating the candidate's scholarly or professional contributions. Such cases should be uncommon.

When proposing a reviewer from outside academia, the department chair must explain:

• Why the individual possesses appropriate expertise;
• How the individual's experience relates to the candidate's area of excellence; and
• Why the individual is qualified to assess the quality and impact of the candidate's work.

Departments may also choose to obtain letters from non-academic professionals and include them in the Solicited Letters section of the dossier when those perspectives provide relevant evidence of impact or professional standing.

Individuals who are temporarily employed outside academia (for example, in government, industry, or nonprofit organizations) but maintain an adjunct or affiliated academic appointment may be appropriate reviewers.

Academic Rank of Reviewers

Non-Tenure-Track Candidates

Titles for non-tenure-track faculty vary considerably across institutions. Reviewers may hold titles such as:

• Teaching Professor
• Professor of Practice
• Clinical Professor
• Lecturer or Senior Lecturer
• Other comparable appointments

Before inviting a reviewer, departments should confirm that the reviewer holds a rank equivalent to or higher than the rank sought by the candidate.

For example:

• Reviewers for promotion to Senior Lecturer or Clinical Associate Professor should generally hold at least an equivalent mid-level rank.
• Reviewers for promotion to Teaching Professor, Clinical Professor, or other senior ranks should generally hold an equivalent senior-level appointment.

The department chair should describe rank equivalencies in the report accompanying the reviewer list.

Tenure-Track Candidates

For tenure-track promotion and tenure cases, reviewers should generally be tenured faculty members.

If a reviewer is not tenured but is a recognized expert in the candidate's field, or if the reviewer works at an institution without a tenure system, the department chair should explain why the individual is nonetheless an appropriate reviewer.

Maintaining an Arm's-Length Relationship

External reviewers must be sufficiently independent of the candidate to provide an objective evaluation.

Relationships That Generally Disqualify a Reviewer

The following relationships typically mean a reviewer is not considered at arm's length. In most cases, this restriction applies for five years following the relationship.

Examples include:

• Co-authoring books, articles, chapters, or similar scholarly works.
• Serving as co-principal investigators on grants.
• Significant mentoring relationships.
• Serving on a dissertation committee.
• Serving as the candidate's dissertation advisor or director (this relationship permanently disqualifies a reviewer).

Close editorial relationships may also create conflicts, including:

• A candidate serving as editor and soliciting contributions from a senior scholar.
• A senior scholar serving as editor and soliciting contributions from the candidate.

Relationships That Generally Do Not Disqualify a Reviewer

The following activities do not usually create a conflict of interest:

• Serving as co-investigators on large, collaborative projects where interaction is limited and participants function as peers.
• Appearing together on conference panels.
• Serving on conference organizing committees.
• Serving together on editorial boards.
• Professional relationships that ended more than five years ago (except dissertation advisor relationships).

Key Principles for Managing External Reviews

Confidentiality

Candidates should not be informed of the identities of external reviewers.

Candidates may:

• Identify individuals who should not be contacted as reviewers (without providing a reason).
• Suggest potential reviewers for consideration.

However, candidates are not responsible for developing the final reviewer list, and final reviewer selection remains the responsibility of the department and school.

Candidates should not contact potential reviewers regarding their promotion or tenure case. Because candidates generally will not know who the reviewers are, they should be advised to avoid discussing their review with colleagues or scholars in their field while the review is underway.

Confirm Independence Early

Whenever possible, departments should confirm that a reviewer is at arm's length before the reviewer formally agrees to serve.

Ensure Consistent Materials

All reviewers should receive exactly the same review materials.

Departments should:

• Provide materials simultaneously whenever feasible.
• Confirm receipt of materials promptly.
• Follow up as needed to avoid delays in the review process.

Documentation Requirements

Each external review letter must:

• Be written on institutional or organizational letterhead.
• Include the reviewer's signature.
• Include a completed reviewer conflict-of-interest form.

Reviewer Qualifications Statement

For every external reviewer, the dossier should include a brief statement explaining:

• Why the reviewer is qualified to evaluate the candidate.
• How the reviewer's expertise relates to the candidate's area of excellence.
• The reviewer's professional standing and relevant credentials.

Brief biographical summaries should be provided. Full curriculum vitae should not be included unless specifically requested.